Patriot Act Civil Liberties Violations
     
 Home | boring articles | famous ufo quotes | god spell | media watch | nigerian email revenge |  sex vision test |  foundation
george bush files | your orgins | pay your taxes! |  perspective |  strange facts |  killer camel spiders |  world peace plan

   Warning - Content could pollute your mind and dilute your reality



"The government deficit is the difference between the amount of money the government spends and the amount it has the nerve to collect. " -Sam Ewing --Ralph Nader

Patriot Act Civil Liberties Violations

Military Tribunals - Due Process

Since September 11th, 2001, the federal government has taken steps to greatly diminish the due process rights of terrorism-related suspects and witnesses.

First, the Bush Administration has authorized the use of military tribunals to try non-citizen unlawful combatants. While courts have consistently held that "the Due Process Clause applies to all "persons" within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent," the Bush Administration's policy unjustly singles out non-citizens. Military tribunals have significantly different procedures than normal judicial proceedings. For instance, military tribunals prohibit the right of appeal to a civilian court and use appointed military counsel for the defendant. They also do not follow judicial rules of evidence; thus, hearsay evidence and evidence collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment may be admitted, and evidence against a defendant may be withheld from a defendant and his or her lawyer.

Your rights are going bye bye!
Material Support

Additionally, nearly all of the DOJ's prosecutions under the USA PATRIOT Act have relied on Section 805: "Material Support for Terrorism." The DOJ has been using this controversial section to charge people without having to show they knowingly contributed to terrorist acts or plans for such acts. Parts of Section 805 have been held to violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment. In January of 2004, a federal judge in the Central District of California ruled that a ban on providing "expert advice and assistance" to terrorist groups violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution because it is so vague that it "could be construed to include unequivocally pure speech and advocacy protected by the First Amendment." In a related case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in December 2003 that two other prohibitions contained in that law, prohibitions on providing "training" and "personnel" to designated terrorist groups, were unconstitutionally vague. These cases enjoined the DOJ from using these parts of Section 805 against the plaintiff human rights organizations. For more information on the Material Support provision, read Georgetown law professor and volunteer Center for Constitutional Rights attorney, David Cole's testimony before the Senate's Judiciary Committee.

Material Witness Statute

Another controversial law that the government has increasingly been using in terrorism-related investigation is the material witness statute, 18 U.S.C. 3144. The DOJ has used this law to detain individuals whose testimony is "material" to a criminal proceeding and who are likely to flee. The DOJ has refused to say how many individuals the agency is holding under the statute for terrorism-related investigations, which has lead some to question whether the law is being abused. Many argue that the government is using the material witness statute as a means to detain suspects when they do not have evidence to criminally charge them. The statute does not set a maximum time for detention of the witness.

Just A Few Patriot Act Realities For Your Reading Pleasure

    FAIR USE NOTICE     Portions of this site might contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to express views of noe or all of the following: environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and information purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
   
 
Copyrighted 1801-2035 NetScientia Web Concepts NetScientia
Expressing Progressive views for a Repressive world - or viceversa

www.netscientia.com